Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 18 recite the limitation "the door lock plate” in line 4, 4 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) that depend(s) from the rejected claim(s) 2-9, and 19-20 is/are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by D1 (Yoon et al., US Pub. 2015-0128667).
For claim 18, D1 discloses, in Figures 1-35, an integrated door lock comprising:
a door lock plate assembly (110) configured to be mounted to an exterior side of a door (10) at a lock region;
a hands-free bump knob (900) supported by the door lock plate assembly, the hands-free bump knob communicatively mechanically coupled to a bolt of the integrated door lock, and configured to (i) retract the bolt of the integrated door lock into a retracted state when the hands-free bump knob is pressed into an open state (Para. [0009]), and (ii) extend the bolt of the integrated door lock into a non-retracted state when the hands-free bump knob is released from the open state into a closed state; and
an authentication module (200, 300. Para. [0215]) supported by the door lock plate assembly and communicatively coupled and configured to (i) enable a user to be authenticated (Para. [0218]), and (ii) prevent the hands-free bump knob from transitioning the bolt from the non-retracted state to the retracted state until the user is authenticated (Para. [0223])
For claim 19, D1 discloses the integrated door lock of claim 18, further comprising a non-transitory memory configured to store information for at least one authorized user and at least one associated authentication data (Control unit compares password with reference data. Abstract. Para. [0215, 0218].)
For claim 20, D1 discloses the integrated door lock of claim 19, wherein the authentication module (200, 300) includes at least one processor (control unit 1000) configured to receive a plurality of authentication data and validate at least one authentication data provided by the user by accessing the information stored in the non-transitory memory (Abstract. Para. [0222-0225].)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (Yoon et al., US Pub. 2015-0128667) in view of D2 (Lietz et al., US Pub. 2016-0298373) and D3 (Torii, US 5,598,151).
For claim 1, D1 discloses, in Figures 1-35, an integrated door lock comprising:
a door lock plate assembly (110) configured to be mounted to an exterior side of a door (10) at a lock region;
a hands-free bump knob (900) supported by the door lock plate and communicatively mechanically coupled to a bolt of the integrated door lock (Para. [0009]), configured to:
retract the bolt of the integrated door lock into a retracted state when the hands-free bump knob is pressed into an open state (Para. [0009]); and
extend the bolt of the integrated door lock into a non-retracted state when the hands-free bump knob is released from the open state into a closed state; and
the door lock plate assembly further configured to enable at least one physical module (200, password input module; Para. [0215-0217]) to be mechanically and communicatively attached thereto, the at least one physical module being communicatively coupled to an alarm system (Para. [0250, 0255]) that monitors a premises and the at least one physical module being configured to transition the alarm system from an activated state to an inactivated state, and vice versa, when activated.
D2 teaches a system with button 32, 34 to operate the door (para. [0030]) providing a secured lock. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D1 with a button, such that the button configured to extend the bolt of the integrated door lock into a non-retracted state when the hands-free bump knob is released from the open state into a closed state, as taught by D2 with a reasonable expectation of success of having a secured lock.
D3 teaches a system that continuously monitor and generate alarm signals to provide a secured environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D1 a monitoring system that monitors and generates alarm, as taught by D3 with a reasonable expectation of success of having a secured environment.
D1 modified with D2 and D3 teaches the limitation the at least one physical module being configured to transition the alarm system from an activated state to an inactivated state, and vice versa, when activated.
D1 modified with features of D2 and D3 teaches the claimed limitations.
For Claim 2, D1 discloses the integrated door lock of claim 1, further comprising a non-transitory memory configured to store information for at least one authorized user and at least one associated authentication data (Control unit compares the password, abstract. It is inherent that memory is employed to store preset password for later retrieval for comparison purposes.)
For claim 3, D1 discloses the integrated door lock of claim 2, further comprising an authentication module (300) that includes at least one processor (Control unit 1000) configured to receive a plurality of authentication data and validate at least one authentication data provided by the user by accessing the information stored in the non-transitory memory (Abstract. Para. [0217-0218].)
For claim 4, D1 discloses the integrated door lock of claim 3, wherein the at least one physical module further includes a keypad (Para. [0217]) configured to enable the user to enter a keycode as the at least one authentication data (Para. [0217-0218].)
For claim 5, D1 discloses the integrated door lock of claim 1, further comprising at least two physical sub-modules configured to enable the user to perform respective functions, wherein at least one of the physical sub-modules (200) is configured to receive respective disparate authentication data from the user (Para. [0217].)
D1 discloses the claimed invention except for two physical modules. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have two physical modules, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. In re Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
D1 modified with duplication of parts teaches the claimed limitations.
For claim 7, D1 discloses the integrated door lock of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the door lock plate assembly is further configured to enable a plurality of physical modules to be mechanically and communicatively attached thereto to add additional functionality to the integrated door lock.
D1 discloses the claimed invention except for plurality of physical modules. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a plurality of physical modules, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. In re Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
D1 modified with duplication of parts teaches the claimed limitations.
For claim 8, D1 disclose the integrated door lock of claim 7, further comprising first electronics supported by the door lock plate assembly, and wherein the plurality of physical modules includes a second electronics configured to be electrically communicatively coupled to the first electronics (D1 modified with duplication of parts teaches the claimed limitations.)
For claim 9, D1 discloses the integrated door lock of claim 1, further comprising: a second door lock plate assembly (120) configured to be secured to an indoor side of the door, wherein the first and second door lock plate assemblies are further configured to be mechanically secured to one another via the door (Figures 1-2); and wherein the second door lock plate assembly includes a second hands-free bump knob (i) supported by the second door lock plate assembly and (ii) communicatively mechanically coupled to the bolt of the integrated door lock, the second hands-free bump knob configured to retract the bolt of the integrated door lock to the retracted state when pressed into the open state and extend the bolt of the integrated door lock to the non-retracted state when released from the open state into the closed state.
D1 modified with D2 teaches a system with button 32, 34 to operate the door (para. [0030]), except for a second hands-free bump knob (button). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a second hands-free bump knob (button), since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. In re Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
D1 modified with D2 and duplication of pats teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (Yoon et al., US Pub. 2015-0128667) in view of D2 (Lietz et al., US Pub. 2016-0298373) and D3 (Torii, US 5,598,151) and further in view of D4 (Else et al., US 11,776,337).
For claim 6, D1 discloses the integrated door lock of claim 3, but does not disclose further comprising wireless communications electronics configured to wirelessly communicate data to a data repository to update (i) a status of the integrated door lock with the user, (ii) timestamp a change of the status or interaction, and (iii) a type of the authentication data provided by the user.
D4 teaches a lock system with user authentication (abstract), wireless network (Col.2, L1-3), and timestamp (Col.14, L 65-67) providing a secured lock. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D1 with authentication system, wireless system, and timestamp, such comprising wireless communications electronics configured to wirelessly communicate data to a data repository to update (i) a status of the integrated door lock with the user, (ii) timestamp a change of the status or interaction, and (iii) a type of the authentication data provided by the user, as taught by D4 with a reasonable expectation of success of having a secured lock.
Claim(s) 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (Yoon et al., US Pub. 2015-0128667) in view of D2 (Lietz et al., US Pub. 2016-0298373) and D3 (Torii, US 5,598,151).
For claim 10, D1 discloses, in Figures 1-35, a method of operating an integrated door lock, said method comprising:
receiving, by an authentication module (200, 300. Para. [0215]) of a door lock interface coupled to an exterior side of a door, authentication data from a user (Control unit compares the password with preset reference password, abstract);
comparing, by the authentication module, the authentication data to a list of stored authentication data (Control unit compares the password with preset reference password, abstract);
enabling a hands-free bump knob to transition a bolt to a retracted state if the authentication data matches the stored authentication data; and in response to the hands-free bump knob being pressed, retracting the bolt.
D2 teaches a system with button 32, 34 to operate the door (para. [0030]) providing a secured lock. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D1 with a button, such that the button configured to extend the bolt of the integrated door lock into a non-retracted state when the hands-free bump knob is released from the open state into a closed state, as taught by D2 with a reasonable expectation of success of having a secured lock.
For claim 11, D1 discloses the method according to claim 10, further comprising providing a memory configured to store information for at least one authorized user and the at least one authorized user’s associated authentication information in a list of verified authentication data (Abstract. 200, 300. Para. [0215, 0218].)
For claim 12, the combination teaches the method according to claim 11, further comprising enabling the hands-free bump knob to transition the bolt from a non-retracted state to the retracted state if at least two authentication data received matches at least two entries on the list of verified authentication data (D2 teaches a system with button 32, 34 to operate the door (para. [0030].) D1 modified with D2 teaches the claimed limitations.)
For claim 13, D1 discloses the method according to claim 11, further comprising receiving, by the authentication module the authentication data from a keypad of the authentication module (Keypad, para. [0217].)
For claim 14, D1 discloses the method according to claim 13, wherein receiving the authentication data involves receiving a keycode to enable the user to be authenticated (Para. [0218].)
For claim 15, D1 discloses the method according to claim 11, wherein receiving the authentication data from the user at the authentication module includes receiving a first authentication data from the user via a first sub-module and receiving a second authentication data from the user via a second sub-module (300 receives data to authenticate. Para. [0218].)
D1 discloses the claimed invention except for plurality of physical modules. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a plurality of physical modules, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. In re Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
D1 modified with duplication of parts teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (Yoon et al., US Pub. 2015-0128667) in view of D2 (Lietz et al., US Pub. 2016-0298373) and further in view of D4 (Else et al., US 11,776,337).
For claim 16, D1 discloses the method according to claim 11, further comprising: transmitting, via a wireless communications module, a status of the integrated door lock to a data repository, the status including a user ID, timestamp, and type of the authentication data provided by the user; and updating the status of the integrated door lock in the data repository.
D4 teaches a lock system with user authentication (abstract), wireless network (Col.2, L1-3), and timestamp (Col.14, L 65-67) providing a secured lock. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D1 with system having transmitting, via a wireless communications module, a status of the integrated door lock to a data repository, the status including a user ID, timestamp, and type of the authentication data provided by the user; and updating the status of the integrated door lock in the data repository, as taught by D4 with a reasonable expectation of success of having a secured lock.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (Yoon et al., US Pub. 2015-0128667) in view of D2 (Lietz et al., US Pub. 2016-0298373) and D3 (Torii, US 5,598,151).
For claim 17, the combination teaches the method according to claim 11, but does not disclose further comprising: setting an alarm communications module to an activated state; transmitting a signal from the alarm communications module to an alarm system; and setting the alarm system to transition to an ON state.
D3 teaches a system that continuously monitor and generate alarm signals to provide a secured environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D1 with setting an alarm communications module to an activated state; transmitting a signal from the alarm communications module to an alarm system; and setting the alarm system to transition to an ON state, as taught by D3 with a reasonable expectation of success of having a secured environment.
D1 modified with D3 teaches the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and provides example of invention. A few of the prior art cited but not applied includes Mullet (US 9,384,657); Carter (US 8,144,184); and Fu (US 10,986,717).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN CUMAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3112. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KRISTINA FULTON can be reached at 571-272-7376. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NATHAN CUMAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights